Baby steps

[Az]

When discussing matters of belief with someone that has a diametrically opposed view it doesn't matter how right or convincing your argument is. If it is sufficiently at odds with their position it simply will not register. This goes all ways. Whether you are a Deist explaining things to a Pagan or a Christian explaining things to an Atheist. Its not stuborness, arrogance, delusions, or any other lamentable thing. It is simply human nature.

Our beliefs are formed from a life time of experience and learning stored as emotional relevance in our brain. The more we learn of a particular view the more emotional weight it gathers. Eventually we gather a collection of views sufficient to create our own internal sense of the world and how it works. Needless to say we are quite attached to this view. It is dynamic and constantly changing but as time goes on it becomes increasingly difficult to overcome our emotional certainty about our particular beliefs.

Put succinctly right or wrong a person's world view simply works for them. It is how they see and understand the world around them. When they are confronted by issues and problems they compare it to their particular emotional senses of the issue and deal with it as it relates to them.

With a well founded world view most issues can quickly and confidently be placed into relevant understanding. But occaisionally we come across issues that are not so clear. We can't simply know where they lie within our sense of the world. Fortunately the brain has come up with a number of ways of shifting these issues into focus so we can move them into a more emotionally stable understanding.

The brain uses a variety of tools. Since it is very good at recognizing patterns many people turn to looking for signs of portent relating to events to inform them of the relevance of the issue. Others develop supersticions. The more critical the descision the more we see such supersticions show up in cultures.

One of the tools the mind has come up with is reason and rational thought. These tools allow us to use logic as a system to determine the truth of an issue. Its a learned process but it has become reliable enough that many embrace it and accept it as a means of shifting their beliefs and emotions on issues. The brain works with emotions. Reason can inform those emotions.

So understanding this nature of the human mind when entering into a discussion with someone about critical beliefs gives us a sense of how to approach such a discussion. Even if you are fully confident in the truth of your position you may not have come to it by the same means as someone else. Just because a system of belief or a world view may be flawed in our mind does not mean it is not effective to someone else. The brain doesn't care about truth. It only cares about utility.

So when discussing issues of such varied positions it is necissary to respect others views even if you differ with them in the extreme. You are not going to shift them from their position just because you feel stronger about your position than you think they do. The only way any progress can be made in such a discussion is by finding commonalities between understanding and building upon them. Baby steps. Find the small issues that you both can agree upon and work from there.

Do not expect another's beleifs to fall away simply because you have pointed out or even convinced them of a flaw. The mind naturally will attempt to adapt around the flaw until enough emotional counter weight has built up within the mind to initiate cognitive disonance. If sufficient contrary ideas find a foothold (not just exposure but acceptance) it can cause the mind to become disoriented until it can shift the balance one way or the other. This is not a pleasant condition for the mind.

This shift in balance is what many experience as a crisis of faith. Its not fun. No matter which way your beliefs are shifting. A life time of beliefs and understanding can be called into question. Without this foundation it is very easy and common to lose one's way. This is why many who lose their faith find their way back to it in the end. Because without having a new world view to replace the lost one finding your way through life can be very scary.

We are going to discuss such matters because like belief sharing belief is human nature. But it is best if we understand how belief works and shifts. The world view a person has is their's by way of a lifetime of experience. To think that your words alone could shift that is perhaps asking a bit too much. You may add some weight to the other side of their scales but in the end they are the one's that have to collect all the experiences and determine where they find their balance.

[pinto]

1. To be honest, I don't have a conflict with anyone about religion,

or politics, for that matter. I really like people, a lot. We're so lovingly us.
Thanks for your post.

[beam me up scottie]

2. So you're saying believers suffer from cognitive dissonance?

The mind naturally will attempt to adapt around the flaw until enough emotional counter weight has built up within the mind to initiate cognitive disonance.

[Az]

3. Nonbelievers get it too

Anyone that undergoes a shift in belief goes through a phase of cognitive disonance.

[beam me up scottie]

4. Anybody else would get fire bombed for that.

Why don't you don your trusty asbestos underwear just in case I'm wrong?

[Az]

5. I think you are misreading the statement

Its not that believers are flawed. Its that when a flaw in anyone's thinking is pointed out to them it accumulates along with other such problems until cognitive disonance arises. That is the moment at which the dominant side can no longer overwhelm the opposing side and balance is achieved. Oddly enough the brain hates balance of ideas. It causes stress and all manner of fluxuations. The brain likes lopsided ideas. As soon as balance in achieved it struggles to upend it.

[beam me up scottie]

6. No, I don't think so.

I have a friend who is researching a similar subject and I'm curious, where did you find the information about the brain's reaction to a balance of ideas?

[Az]

9. Its not simply ideas

Its the emotional relevance of accepted and embraced ideas. A new idea does not necissarily carry with it a strong emotional relevance. The means by which it is accrued or the repetitiveness by which it is represented give it the emotional weight necissary to shift beliefs. If I said toast was crunchy you would file that away as a rather noninspiring idea. But if I informed you that toast was crunchy backed by the Mormon Tabernacle choir on a weekly basis the crunchiness of toast would take on a greater value to your world view.

How you come by ideas and what they link into plays a large part in how they relate to your beliefs. If you have no existing strong beliefs that link to a new idea then it will tend to flounder unless it comes with its own strong emotional relevance (ie you caught fire when you experienced it).

Consider the issue of epileptics and their post seizure state of mind. An epileptic fit causes a major cascade event in the brain. This frequently scrambles the emotional focus of memories and observations in their mind for some time afterwards. They can become focused on a single grain of sand carrying universal import simply because their ability to determine the emotional relevance of the idea of a grain of sand has been discombobulated (thats a fun word). For them at that moment the emotional importance of that grain of sand outweighs everything else. Eventually the mind rights itself but the memory of that momentary focus remains. They may not be able to capture it again in exactly the same way but it can shift their point of view.

[Bluerthanblue]

7. serious question:

what about those who believe that there is no 'absolute correct position'?

What I mean by that is, what if one comes to a point where they believe that there can be a myriad of answers- none of them 'wrong'- each one relevant, and applicable to the 'thinker'?

Or, to turn it completely around- what if we are ALL wrong- and the 'correct' belief, hasn't been discovered, or recognized yet?

Having swung to the far ends of each side of the pendulum, one sometimes comes to a stop where there isn't an extreem 'right or left'

[Az]

8. Compartmentalization

There are people that work in fields that are contrary to their beliefs (Geologists/YECers). These people place contrary ideas in seperate areas of their mind. Ideally they would like to resolve them but the stress of doing so is too great so they create a buffer zone around each position and keep the ideas from mixing as best they can.

Keep in mind though that just because a person doesn't think there is one answer doesn't mean they don't have a personal favorite. In a complex society with complex ideas sometimes social graces win out over desire to have a homogeneous social world view.

[bryant69]

11. It is comforting to note that believers may not be flawed

I'm not taking offense though, I get the sense that none is offered. I do find your attitude about how people move from position to position fascinating, though, particularly because you are an atheist (if memory serves). Many atheists seem to believe that becoming an atheist is a strictly intellectual affair - you expose your religious beliefs to the cold light of reason and they melt away. Doesn't seem like you see things that way.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://seventysketches.blogspot.com

[Meshuga]

10. What you said...

not only works for the heated debates in message boards but also explains the conflicts within one's community.

To an extent what we (members of the non-orthodox version of my religion) do is to look for the flaws and we attempt to adapt our law around the flaws. We do that in the form of responsa. We welcome that cognitive dissonance and we define the flow of conflicting ideas that comes with progress in society as the "ongoing revelation".

As opposed to the Orthodox who believe in the literal revelation from God at Mount Sinai. To them there is no ongoing revelation. Those laws given at Sinai are the laws and they live by that therefore seeing us, the non-orthodox, as being totally off and trying to change the word of God. We are rejected and classified as being totally wrong because their lifetime worth of beliefs and understanding are coming to question. Our existence is a threat to that lifetime worth of beliefs.

Understanding the fact that we are not going to change anybody's mind, we enter the debate with the orthodox respecting and not denying their point of view with the goal of getting the same in response. It's not a "who is right or who is wrong" debate but a debate that will make us understand each other's point of view.

If we act differently the debate will only get out of control. When people are not willing to accept someone else's point of view the debate transforms into chaos since we are going to see a lot of natural resistance. When people are willing to understand each other's point of view the board becomes more civil.

My perception is that most here are willing to take the baby steps since this board seems to be one of the most civil religion/theology message boards on the net.